https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229092
--- Comment #9 from Kajetan Staszkiewicz ---
I see only those fields free to be used:
struct pfsync_state {
u_int8_t __spare[2];
}
struct pfsync_state_peer {
u_int8_tpad[6];
}
None of them is enough to car
On Monday, 13 August 2018 15:22:33 CEST Kristof Provost wrote:
> > This function is called from pf_test only after PF_RULES_RUNLOCK().
>
> I think you’re right, this does look wrong.
>
> It’s very unlikely that this will actually lead to a crash, because
> rules (and associated tables) won’t jus
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229092
--- Comment #8 from Kristof Provost ---
(In reply to Kajetan Staszkiewicz from comment #7)
I'd be very very hesitant to break compatibility. A common pattern with pfsync
is that one gateway is upgraded while the other takes over. That'll ne
